@ saleeqa

""Political Govt was not allowed to play any rule in the matter relating to national security and foreign policy."" hmmm political government is working in Pakistan from last year and what a brilliant work they have been doing. Irrespective of any political party, they all are jointly trying their utmost for the betterment of nation in a superb way...............

As regards your second para, army is an organized institution and its Generals controlling different ranks and files are the key decision makers and their decisions/statements are termed as voice of their troops.

I am sorry to say that these generals didnt complete their tenure. Tenure of D.G ISI is 3-years and General Mahmud worked there for 2 years, and General Muzaffar remained Dy. Chief of Army Staff for a very brief period perhaps from May - October 2001. while General Aziz remained Core Commander Lahore from August 2000-2001 thn he was made Chairman Chiefs Joints Committee.... again have a look on those information at wikipedia, just try to read between the lines. you may find many things there.

Sir Winston Churchill had said

"democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

No man made system can be flawless and democracy is not an exception. But with all of its flaws ,it is the best system in contemporary world. For Pakistan Democracy is the only way to survival. These Generals have ruined this country but unfortunately we can not identify the real culprits?

India is world,s largest democracy ,it is the country that has emrged as a big power in the international areana.But what happens there?i share an example from india's politics.

Last year Munmohin’s Govt had to face No Confidence Movement in the wake of US-India nuclear deal. Communists and some other allais left the Govt on the pretext that the said agreement contained certain conditions that were perceived as compromise on national sovereignty. What happened afterwards’ There was open trading of MPs. It is said that 3 independent MPs took 1billion Pounds (Yes GBP) to abstain during the voting process. It is an ugly aspect of democracy but believe me it is still incomparable to dictatorship.” “The Worst democracy is much better than the best Dictatorship”

I may be wrong ,but I believe that if this democracy is not allowed to continue, our survival would be at stake .

Regarding the sitting Govt , it may be committing blunders ,but it has to appear before the court of People and if public is not satisfied they will vote them out. What if some General comes????? I have belief and I can prove it with the facts that in spite of all the constraints imposed on civilian Govts in Pakistan this Govt is much much better than all the dictatorships. No mention to the brutal, immoral and atrocious regime of Zia Ul Haq , It is far better to Mushraf. But before going ahead, one has to be impartial leaving aside the media company .Here are some facts ,that no one can deny

1-It is being said that this Govt is corrupt. It may be but not more than Mushraf Govt. Just recall 2002 Election when loyalties of 22 members of PPP were purchased by use of Public Money. Was it not a big example of corruption and mal governance. Today Musharaf is living in the posh area of London where a normal Pakistani Citizen can not even imagine to live. Shaukat Aziz has established his own financial institution in Middle east. From where he earned this money? We as nation possess a weak memory. Benazir Bhutto was a corrupt politician in the eys of many. Her decision of
Purchasing independent power plants in 1994 was projected as a biggest scandal of corruption. The socalled political analysts said that time that there was no need for these plants as existing electricity is enough to meet domestic requirements .But today no one can deny that if BB had not taken that decision ,electricity would have been vanished from our country.

I can not say any thing regarding the alleged corruption of current PP’s Leadership , but I believe one thing. I do not follow the media blindly. I have no affiliation with PP (except I voted it in the last election and may not vote next time ) but one thing I have observed that media never remained impartial with PP. Take the NRO as example, Zaedari remained in jail for 11 years and a single case was not proved against him. Mian Nawaz Shareef himself confessed that he was pressurized by ISI to constitute corruption cases against BB and Zardari. Senator Saif ur Rehman publicaly apologized from Zardari.In one case Justice Qayoom and Rashid aziz sentenced BB but afterwards it proved a biased and politicized decision.(Both the judges had to quit their office).In spite of all these facts that no one can deny , NRO is termed as a black law . Well it may be …..but look at other side and judge the behavior of media.(PLEASE FORGET THE MAN ASIF ZARDARI FOR SOME TIME AND ASSUME SOME ONE ELS AT HIS PLACE) ……… Mian nawaz shareef or no other member of his party has deniad the allegation of receiving 3.5 million (bribe or corruption or whatever you may say) from GENERAL HAMEED GUL SAHAB to defeat PP. Has any one demanded inquiry in this matter??? Mian Sahab preferred to go to Saudi Arabia after withdrawal of legal cases by PRESIDENT(through NRO or any other termed that may be ascribed to this arrangement ) instead of facing trial?? At that time the renowned Judges like Iftakhar Chaudhry ,Khalil Ur Rehman Ramday and many others?....Mian Sahab made agreements with BB while she had accepted NRO ,no objection was raised that time? I do not say PP is the best ,I say political system is the best .it must be allowed to work and believe me it will remove its deficiencies itself. We can vote out the current govt next time and afterwards incoming regime would cautious to repeat the previous mistakes.

2-Coimg to the comparison between Mushraf and current regime ,the second point is that Mushraf damaged the federation(every dictator has committed this crime that brought worst consequences).He weakened the national level political parties. Baluchs had certain grievances with the federation but he aggravated the situation by killing Bugti Sahab along with certain other doctoral actions. There may be many who still endorse his decision because we accept the reality after suffering the loss. We declared Mujeeb Ur Rehman a traitor but he was representing his nation that was deprived of its basic rights by the Generals (Mujeeb Ur Rehman presented his six points in 1966).We lost a part of our country and faced a humiliating defeat due to dictators. Military rule gifted us the terrorism that is posing a threat to survival of the country and Pakistan has been defamed all over the world being epicenter of terrorism but still we want MILITARY RULE.

__________________
Hoee hay jab say mukhalif hawa zamanay key......
Humain bhee dhun see hoee hay diaa jalaanay key

Tabassum i think that u r also swayed by the illogical rhetoric of some people launching a political vendetta against the government of the day.rest assured that Kerry-Lugar Bill is not going to pervert our political,military and nuclear foundations.visit of Hillary Clinton took only one message back to the USA:the betterment of the people of Pakistan is something that can only serve the interests of the USA.if ,for that purpose, they want to help us develop our social and political infrastructure,most welcome.they hv now realised the paramount importance of that purpose.
as for as your above statistics r concerned, your concluding remarks are amazing.
if we had been able to raise that amount daily, we would hv ruled the world almost.
we are dependent on Kerry-Lugar type of bills just because we lack that potential.

__________________
Recite a Darood Shareef at least once and now.
(RAFIQUE AHMED KHOKHAR)

@ saleeqa; dear fellow i didnt say that polictical system is bad or military rule is good, every system has its own pros and cons, but the current politicians are not doing much good, if musharaf was worse thn these are also even not bad, they are rather equaly worse. .. yes democracy can be good for the country, but these are not democrats either, have you seen any democracy in these political parties? their top leadership is hereditary and dont allow democratic norms to prevail in their ranks and files, what to talk of the nation... PPP and PML (N) are repeating their norm of 1990 when one wil go and the other will come and both remains axing others roots only to grab power, they dont have soft corner for the nation, if only top 2-5 leaders of both parties take money from their foreign accounts to deposit in Pakistani banks even thn the situation of country can change drastically. PML (N) is waiting for its turn to come into power.. this seems to be a drastic fact.

@ dear fromQAU, we dont lack potential, we lack leadership.

__________________
'Thee woh ik shakhs kay tasawar saay - abb woh ranayee khayal kahaan'

Undoubtdily,Democracy is not in ideal conditions in Pakistan ,but there is reason for it.Military didctators an Generals have not allowed this system to function smoothly.Democracy is not mere a farm of Govt rather it it is well-understood group of values, attitudes, and practices — all of which may take different forms and expressions among cultures and societies around the world. Democracies rest upon fundamental principles of freedom, equality ,liberty and justice.It has a built in system of accountibility.I am sure ,if it is allowed to continue uninterpiidly ,it would be removing all the deficiencies.

I believ that there is no comparison of dictatorship with democracy.

__________________
Hoee hay jab say mukhalif hawa zamanay key......
Humain bhee dhun see hoee hay diaa jalaanay key

well bros and sisters i think that a layman does not have any interest and is least concerned whether ther is a democracy in the country or a military rule or a kingship. His basic need is the bread and butter which i am sorry to say that the current government has poorly failed to provide,I heard somwhere that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely",which is the problem of the current government, how can a person who has spent almost 8 years of life in jail be our President !!!! isn't it pathetic, I think that our rulers should use their abilities for the betterment of the people and not for scoring of marks against each other.I fear that with the prevailing situation we might fall into another military rule dut to mistakes of our democratic rulers and then again they would be cursing the military for their own mistakes.

we dont lack leadership.we hv many leaders.but some of them cannot get the chance to rule,and some of them,who hv got the chances, have corrupted.but still there is one section of leaders that is awaiting their turn.they will get their turn when Pakistan becomes truly democratic and dynastic politics meets its destiny (death).
what we lack is just stable and consistent political institutions and policies.
we are again a democracy.lets stabilize it by being positive about it and optimistic about its future.if this system survives for atleast one or two decades,we would hv an ideal leadership( one that is awaiting).you shud keep in mind that democracies stabilise themselves through evolution, not revolutions.don't lose your heart,we are in a right direction.our system is fledgling and yet to mature.just join strengthen the roots of this nascent tree.accepting Kerry-Lugar Bill will be of immense help.bcoz it will put an end to military rule in futurity.and this is in our best interest Mrs.Tabassu Shabir Awan, my sweet elder sister.

__________________
Recite a Darood Shareef at least once and now.
(RAFIQUE AHMED KHOKHAR)

MNA Marvi Memon refused to meet US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Islamabad. Here she explains why in an open letter published by The Nation.

Open Letter to Secretary Clinton

By MNA Marvi Memon

Exclusive To The Nation

Dear Secretary Clinton,

Whilst the message from you and your government is that of peace and friendship, the Kerry Lugar Bill passed by your legislative branch has been one of the main stumbling blocks in this mission. The assumption that Pakistanis have misunderstood the bill is equally faulty. Pakistanis have read the bill and understood your intent to micromanage Pakistan, to curtail Pakistan’s nuclear expansion program and to direct the war against extremism in Pakistan from White House.

What follows below is an understanding of the bill which needs to be amended if relations between US and patriotic Pakistanis have to be established. Your assertion that if we have issues with the bill we don’t need to take the money is ‘spot on’; patriotic Pakistanis have rejected your mere $1.5 billion. We will not negotiate on our country’s sovereignty and defence. And these are not mere slogans. They are based on facts which we read out of your conditionalities which do exist. And here are the facts Secretary Clinton:

1.The most controversial clause in the bill pertains to giving US ‘direct access to Pakistani nationals associated with such networks’. The explanation given in the note is equally unacceptable because it wants ‘cooperative efforts’ to combat proliferation to continue. This cooperation mentioned is intrusive since it demands ‘direct access’. Secretary Clinton, we have already handled our proliferators and believe in non priliferation. This we consider a breach of our sovereignty.

2.The reference to Pakistan military and intelligence agencies being involved in giving support to terrorists in the past is equally offensive. This is a clause which enables the Indian lobby to target Pakistan and hold it responsible for all future terrorist acts in the region.

3.The other issue pertains to the fact that President Obama’s regional security strategy will include working with ‘relevant governments and organizations in the region and elsewhere.’ The strategy which could include RAW and Mossad would be imposed on Pakistan for US national interest not Pakistan. And as such we cannot give the authority of making Pakistan’s security strategy to a US President.

4.There are references to expansion of Container Security Initiative at various Pakistani ports which we consider a security hazard.

5.The term sanctuary for terrorism implies that Pakistan is a failed state as is included in intelligence reforms and Terrorism Prevention Act 2004.

6.Bill allows ‘irregular forces to be used for US combat operations in Pakistan’ as stated in the Ronald Reagan Act 2005. This in effect gives legal cover to the Dynocores and Blackwaters which we Pakistanis have major issues with and consider a threat to our security.

7.The bill micromanages Pakistan’s important federal government agencies from education, madrassah’s to trade, to judiciary, to natural resources. All aid given will be to NGOs and if more than $100,000 is given those NGO files will become classified. As such Pakistan will not have access to such operations. This we consider an attempt by US to create its own financial political power bases for future.

8.Approximately $860 million of the aid will go back to US in the form of administrative expenses etc. This truly reflects badly on the actual impact on an average Pakistani’s life.

Here were some of the issues with the bill. Now let’s examine what aggravates Pakistani sensitivities with regards to current US policies. And why you are not welcome in Pakistan by patriotic Pakistanis. This might help you understand why over 80% of Pakistanis have issues with your policies as per certain reliable surveys.

1.Firstly, the US stance in the war against extremism is biased towards protecting Indian and Afghan interests. The TTP and Baloch terrorists have been using these two countries and their resources as bases for their operations inside Pakistan as is proven by Pak military evidence. Whilst you consider Pakistan to be sovereign our aid is linked to these two countries which we find distasteful.

2.Whilst Pakistan’s nuclear program is an issue for US, the Indian nuclear program (civil nuclear technology agreement) is being allowed to expand without any blockades.

3.Whilst you have personally complemented Pak military efforts in your recent visit, at the same time there are conditionalities in giving aid to Pakistan to strengthen its military against terrorists. Certainly these terrorists are linked to India and as such conditionalities are one sided. Moreover, if Pakistan military is being complemented why can't it be trusted with drone technology? Additionally US policy wishes to strengthen Pakistan’s parliament and yet it ignores the resolution passed by Pakistani parliament against drone attacks.

4.Whilst Pakistan is a frontline state which has paid dearly in terms of men lost in battle with terrorists, US considers India and Pakistan to be equals. Where is the advantage Pakistan should get for cooperating on terrorism? $1.5 billion is a joke compared to the billions spent in Afghanistan and Iraq, even in Turkey and Egypt. As well as the fact that no where with other allies has US imposed intrusive conditionalities.

5.Whilst Pakistan is blamed for terrorist sanctuaries how many infiltrators coming from India and Afghanistan specifically have you managed to stop?

6.The commitment for ROZs looks like its dithering. Where is the actual support for the tribals who have suffered the most in the war being fought to destabilize Pakistan?

7.What effort has the US played in cutting drug money which is destabilizing Pakistan and funding terrorism considering its source of entry is US backed Afghan territory. UN report confirms that after US entry into Afghanistan opium production has increased manifold. This is impacting Pakistan’s security since it’s ready financing for terrorism inside Pakistan.

Secretary Clinton,

If you wish to improve Pak-US bilateral, a more productive approach would have been to not justify the bill on arrival but rather to give an open ear to the criticisms with a commitment to amending it. Since there have been no such commitments it seems fruitless to meet with you. This is even more disturbing considering that you have been given plenty of evidence of Pakistani uproar on the bill before your arrival. It’s a pity that the bill was executed minus real Pakistani input. This has no doubt created a diplomatic fiasco for the US. Instead of underestimating the fiasco or considering it a result of Pakistani lack of comprehension, it would have been better to deal with it head on: amending the bill being the only viable option.

Pakistan might have a government which is beholden to you for its future longevity, but there are patriotic Pakistanis who will defend the soil before accepting your policies of creating a US fiefdom in Pakistan. As a young parliamentarian, I would only welcome you to Pakistan once we have evidence of your shift in policy so that Pakistan is dealt with as a sovereign country.

MARVI MEMON
Member of National Assembly of Pakistan

This letter was first published by The Nation.

__________________
When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk. ~ The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly

Marvi memon!
i think that when u ppl were in power y had u been so avoidant of realities.
where v stand today,itz just bcoz of u ppl.if u had not taken orders from somewhere Pakistan might hv been at better position.
u meet hillary or not,now ur time is over.these type of immature and rhetorical speeches are not going to endear u to the ppl of pakistan now.but yes itz the only way that u and Tahreek-i-Insaf like parties have.

__________________
Recite a Darood Shareef at least once and now.
(RAFIQUE AHMED KHOKHAR)

Dear SB,

This is unfortunately going to be a long one so please bear with me
For your first reservation, kindly refer to Section 302(a)(13) ironically headed 'Monitoring Reports'. See, in the real world, things are not as they seem to us. Jargon and garbed language is an art best practiced by politicians the world over. Had they actually used terms like 'surveillance' or 'inspection' of Paks nuclear program, my dear, they didnt stand a chance of defending themselves in future. So what do we do? We read between the lines and pay attention to words like 'assessment'. The whole article is so loosely defined, how is one to know precisely what comprises an assessment. USAs track record of foreign policy isnt much to rely upon (it always attacks its previous allies/friends) and so what assurances do we have that tomorrow she isnt going to abruptly claim that Pak has infact diverted the funds for nuclear proliferation (true or not)? Can you give any guarantees? In that case we will be in deep mess. Such are the considerations that these glorified farmers (read feudals) or you and me cannot begin to visualize.

Skimming your questions, I was perplexed, as to on whose side are you afterall? USAs? India's?

Ans 1 has been aptly answered by Tabassum Awan. I am in no way a proponent of Musharraf's policies. However, if compared to these politicians, the army will almost come out looking like Santa Claus and his elves. The difference is that some top Generals may be corrupt but all others and the lower ranks are patriotic men who will not readily sell their country to the devils. Nobody can doubt the sacrifice the forces always give for this country. In the on-going operation in the North, it is NOT the so-called democratic polticians and their children who have given their lives but children of ordinary people of the country. The politicians who now comprise landowning families of Punjab and Sindh weren’t even in favor of Pakistan before its inception. Jinnah Sb had to succumb to their support for the creation of this country because without their support, Muslim League wasnt getting sufficient votes in these provinces. Do you really think they or their offspring have changed? Their sincerity is not towards Pakistan but towards their power bases and money.

Your Q2. So whose fault is it when Pakistan asks for IMFs aid? A good majority of the times it has only been the 'elected' governments who have asked for it including the current one. The military regimes have hardly been involved in begging with a bowl.

Q3. Your allegation that the military is solely responsible for instability of Pakistan is very myopic. I would really like to know your point of view on the co-relation between the army and terrorism/sectarianism because I clearly cannot see a direct link. As for the Klashinikov culture and drug abuse, i suppose you are pointing towards the Zia regime. The reality is that all of that was a by-product of the Afghan war which happened to be right in our backyard. Also replying to another post under this topic; supporting Mujahideens in Afghanistan was integral to Pakistans existence. Pakistan has never and should never admit to taking part in that war. Since we did not have the means to confront the Soviet Union back then directly, who had all eyes on Pakistani soil, we also had to play a proxy war of our own. The Afghan Mujahideens had worked in alliance due to intermingling geo-strategic objectives. Poppy seed has been growing in Afghanistan for a long time now, and Pakistan used the drug money recieved through its sale to win this war, thus creating a parallel 'black' economy we now know of. The situation was exactly the same as now. Soviet Union's attack was welcomed and backed by the Marxist regime in Afghanistan who in turn were against the Mujahideens. Now this government had never had friendly relations with Pakistan and had constantly pestered the latter with claims such as NWFP belonging to Afghanistan. India had also jumped in to play the same trick. So what should we have done? Pretended to be like sitting ducks with India/USSR/Afghanistan sandwiching us down? Pakistan had no choice but to back up resistance factions led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani who would fight OUR war by recieving training from our army. Even after the war was over, ISI under Gen. Hamid Gul had never allowed other less preferred factions to take over the reigns- thus the constant interference of ISI in Afghanistan. Similarly, arms and weapons also leaked into the porous border that we share with Afghanistan. YOU CANNOT AVOID THIS OVERFLOW IN ANY WAY. A fire that ruptures in a house is in danger of spreading to other nearby buildings too. However what matters is that with its problems, Pakistan continues to exist.

Q5. As I said previously, Generals arent clean in conduct all the time. You have named Zias, Ayubs and Gen. Akhter Abdur Rehmans sons. How many more can you safely name? On the flip side, let me name some 'democratic' politicians offspring. Moonis Elahi and bros. Hamza Shahbaz Sharif and bros. Abdul Qadir Gillani and bros. Bilawal Zardari and sissys. Shahbaz Taseer and bros. The Qureishis. Ask for more from this list and Ill provide you that. If not better, this doesnt make army men worse than politicians. Please dont even coax me to start with how much and how come they make money.

Q6. Nuclear proliferation. See, you are talking USA again. USA NEVER wants nuclear proliferation because its not in her best national interest. In order to continue exercising its Superpower status, she has to discourage any future competitor. A militarily strong nation has completed atleast one of the pre-requisites of a great power- so why will USA or other European nations want that? On the other hand, nuclear deterrence may well be crucial to a particular nation's survival. Case in point, Pakistan who apart from creating a shield for India also has Israeli as well as US agendas in mind. North Korea may not feel secure because South Korea may yet again be used as a battle-ground by US. Iran also has to protect itself from a potential Saudi or Israeli attack. Nations have to think not a few years but perhaps as far as an entire century ahead of their times in order to stay safe. Nobody dares question USA when she sells all kinds of wretched weapons to Israel, or when Israel sells air defense systems to India. Why the hell should we be kept back then? Afterall its all about profiteering on one end right? And who would understand this capitalistic agenda better than USA?

Q7. By all means, yes if they would hear and feel. But then it makes me wonder, what point are you driving home here? I mean, are you for or against this democratic government, in the first place?

Q8. India has different motives and USA has different agendas for India too. India doesnt have a pack of hounds scavenging for it. Infact India has to be 'used' by the superpowers to hunt for Pakistan and other muslim nations. So it isnt correct to build analogies based on similar ideological principles or even geographical proximity.Pakistan is the only Islamic nation to carry nuclear capability and in future the world will see how important this point will become. I see Pakistan as the only Islamic country remaining, to have nerves to deal with the intimidating bullies ultimately. All other important countries have sold their souls to US (aka Egypt, Saudi, Jordan etc). But mind you, Pakistan is only playing a very clandestine game with the powers. And by the way, the politicians have nothing to do with it- it is your country's main intelligence agency, the ISI, heavily run by the army in turn, which is doing so. And this is why these local politicians-thugs and USA is so after disbanding its political wing, why else?


My last point is whether democracy is the name of the game or not. Its great to mention big-wigs and their quotes. But one has to be closer to his roots and understand the real stalwarts too. Churchill was a great political personality. But Iqbal is a giant. Its a different matter that we dont read him today. I trust Iqbal more because he was closer to religion, because he is actually a subject himself which people use to write their Phd papers on- nothing that Churchillians can claim for themselves. Now what does he say?

" Democracy is a flawed system that merely counts numbers but does not weigh them"
Elsewhere refuting the Western concept of democracy and linking it with separation of state and religion,

"Juda kar siyasat ko deen se, toh reh jaati hai changezi". ( Separate politics from religion, and what remains is barbarism)
Pondering over what Islam says about modern democracy, it totally shreds it to pieces. Iqbal has often been misconstrued when he talks about "social democracy'. He does not mean counting votes of all citizens in a state. However he means, social justice, equality and freedom for every individual, which is automatically the responsibility of the state and the right of the people in it.


If for some reason, you happen to not agree with Iqbal (yes, theres a breed nowadays that doesnt, though not necessarily you), I will mention another biggy, Che Guevara ( yeah all those T-shirts guys wear, 2/3 of them probably dont know who the image is of, and thats sad). We know what he was about. Ironically, the founding fathers of USA were also against modern democracy. Later they gave in because of various groups that had joined them. Who else? Plato never advocated democracy and preferred the intelligentsia to rule (closer to the Islamic system of governance). This list can also go on.

You say that democracy is also flawed? Then why solicit it if the other systems also have their drawbacks? India has excelled not because of democracy, but because of its good economic and foreign policy, sweetheart. A good single ruler can also do that same for a nation. Chairman Mao Zedong didnt need a democratic drape to pull China out of its gloom and into the 21st century. Hazrat Umar (ra) didnt need individual votes to expand the Islamic empire like never before as well as set the precedence of Islamic justice for generations ever since. Napolean Bonaparte wasnt an elected leader, yet France follows in his footsteps to this day (think the penal code, metric system, education system and administrative system given by him). Democratic leaders may get big in time. But honest, patriotic dictators have been seen to be even bigger in historic kaleidescope.

These democratically elected knaves will never present themselves in court of justice. Hell, so many of them havent even submitted their asset declaration, what to talk of accountability of actions. As long as they are in power, dream on, cuz it wont happen. You pointed out that Benazir was corrupt. What makes you think Zardari isnt then? What credibility does he and his cronies have left?

You say that not a single case was proved against zardari in 11 years. Dear, even Swiss judges had demanded his/Benazirs appearance in courts to answer for all the haywire of corruption/money laundering/ embezzlement etc.
The duo never appeared however.

My single question to you is, how will democracy flourish in Pakistan when all this system has to offer is thieves and traitors whose family business is politics? What plan do you propose to filter out these people? What will happen in time? You think these thugs will vote themselves out? No, cuz they rig elections regularly and coerce their constituencies into voting for them. God knows they buy independent candidates after every general elections, so this completely wipes up any possibility of an honest man in power. The rest play party politics. Enough said.

Take no offence to any of the above, this is just for arguments sake.

Regards,